This whole thread (and many of the comments) is amazing — well worth a read.
I share Jason’s vision of a rough road to localized, bioregional agrarian-based communities, although I think urban centres will have the tech & density advantage so will fare much better than suggested
My own focus now is working with rural folks to transition away from fossil fuel dependence, and towards more local regenerative and resilient practices and social relations via #agroecology — the practical alignment of food production and land stewardship.
Strategic withdrawal.
This will entail a move away from dichotomous frameworks and overcharged ideological narratives that interfere with collaborative projects and open dialogue.
It will also entail community efforts to co-envision local futures grounded in trust, reciprocity, and inclusion.
At the core of this vision and work is a commitment to get beyond atomizing property regimes, and create a network of collective farms and hybrid agrarian-conservation land trusts anchored by bioregional field schools/community hubs that help locals become deeper adapters.
These are all about ‘collapsing now and avoiding the rush’ (JM Greer).
All about cultivating enough adaptive intelligence to proactively transition & transform.
Although many might quibble with my inclusion of #degrowth on that list, because it’s not meant to refer to planned or designed collapse, but as a reorganization of existing modes towards less wasteful and more circular economics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This paper “argues that agroecology is contesting and, at least in some places, effectively changing the main social relations of production in today’s agriculture.” 🧵 tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
“In this respect, [#agroecology] has a strategically important potential for allowing farmers to regain control over the labour process.”
“These practices have emerged as response to distortions in the process of agricultural production that arose as a consequence of increased dependency on external agents (the providers of inputs and technologies, banks, and processing industries)…
“#Permaculture should be viewed as a dynamic social movement that can provide a vision for radical transformation of human societies… As a system based on cooperation and solidarity among humans and non-human nature, permaculture offers a radical reimagination of the possible.”
Of course, there are many things to add from a critical and nuance-seeking perspective— that would start with the truthiness of stating how #permaculture is a historical intellectual artifact and practice with its own biases and blind spots built in. Just like any design practice
But, as a “toy model” to be reckoned with and revised, it’s offers a damn fine integration of practical protocols with a general ethics. Now let’s get about the revision work..
“We conduct a systematic review of 1,682 academic studies on human adaptation responses to identify patterns in constraints and limits to adaptation for different regions, sectors, hazards, adaptation response types, and actors.”
“we find that most literature identifies constraints to adaptation but that there is limited literature focused on limits to adaptation.”
Here’s my thesis: so many established, secure and privileged folks have an aversion to “radical” politics and discourse, where civil obedience is challenged or disagreement and conflict is intense, because *we* outsource genuine contestation to the military.
Care to discuss?
Which a to say, the desire and normative demand to not be adversarial, or to maintain civility and polite discourse, even with things that determine other people’s lives and dignity, is afforded by having cops and military use force to maintain established relations of power.
And it is this established system and culture of de-intensified political exchange — where agents are automatically expected to behave in a way that move towards consensus and peaceful co-existence — that effectively erases important and crucial world-making or remaking concerns.
My personal experience and academic research, both, confirms what Christina is saying. Most people just want to live meaningful lives filled w abundance (of love, fun, food & creativity). It’s our ideologies that block us from seeing the myriad of alternative ways to get this.
The caveat here is that it’s simply not true that people are unable to make the small changes, immediately. There are a lot of “little” lifestyle/consumer changes people are either too lazy, or don’t care enough to make. It’s about AGENCY. We have more than some might think.
I reject the premise that the current global mess we are all in is based solely on “the stories we tell.” These systems (in both their pathological and regenerative forms) are fundamentally relational. This means also material & energetic. Relations are never solely about ideas.
Relations of economic production. Relations of social reproduction. There are systemic and structural relations between bodies, plants, microbes, polities, climate, tools, animals, militaries, institutions, rivers, cops, etc., that generate the very conditions of life.
So if we want to improve the conditions for living we need to do more that just talk, or express, or weave new narratives. We need to forge new relations, “right relations” (as some indigenous folk put it). We need to renegotiate our arrangements with each other and ecology.